论文部分内容阅读
围绕《道路交通安全法》的争论成为社会各界近期讨论的一个热点。争论的焦点集中在对于所谓的“机动车负全责” 以及相关的“第三者强制责任险”等问题。法律的相关规定主要有:该法第76条规定:“机动车发生交通事故造成人身伤亡、财产损失的,由保险公司在机动车第三者责任强制保险责任限额范围内予以赔偿。超过责任限额的部分,按照下列方式承担赔偿责任:(一)机动车之间发生交通事故的,由有过错的一方承担责任;双方都有过错的,按照各自过错的比例分担责任。(二)机动车与非机动车驾驶人、行人之间发生交通事故的,由机动车一方承担责任;但是,有证据证明非机动车驾驶人、行人违反道路交通安全法律、法规,机动车驾驶人已经采取必要处置措施的,减轻机动车一方的责任。交通事故的损失是由非机动车驾驶人、行人故意造成的,机动车一方不承担责任。” 第17条规定:“国家实行机动车第三者责任强制保险制度,设立道路交通事故社会救助基金。” 另第75条规定:“医疗机构对交通事故中的受伤人员应当及时抢救,不得因抢救费用未及时支付而拖延救治。肇事车辆参加机动车第三者责任强制保险的,由保险公司在责任限额范围内支付抢救费用;抢救费用超过责任限额的,未参加机动车第三者责任强制保险或者肇事后逃逸的,由道路交通事故社会救助基金先行垫付部分或者全部抢救费用,道路交通事故社会救助基金管理机构有权向交通事故责任人追偿。”这些规定在制定和实施过程中引发了广泛的社会争论。联系前几年关于交通事故中的所谓“撞了白撞”所引发的广泛讨论,这场关于“机动车负全责”的讨论也反映了更深层次的关于立法价值观和相关立法背景和制度关联的争论。而北京市在为了实施该法而制定实施办法的过程中所进行的立法听证以及由此引发的新争论,再次将关于“机动车负全责”的讨论推向一个新的高潮。本刊邀请有关领域中的专家分别从不同角度对围绕该法的这些争论作更深入的辨析,以期对观察、思考、评论这部法律和相关的法规有所启发。
The controversy surrounding the “Road Traffic Safety Law” has become a hot topic recently discussed by all walks of life. The debate has focused on such issues as being fully responsible for so-called “motor vehicles” and related “third party compulsory liability insurance.” The relevant provisions of the law are: Article 76 of the Act states: “Motor vehicle traffic accidents cause personal injury, property damage, insurance companies in the motor vehicle third party liability insurance coverage limit. The part of the quota shall be liable for compensation in the following manner: (1) Where a traffic accident occurs between motor vehicles, the party liable to the fault shall bear the responsibility; if both parties have fault, they shall share the liability according to their respective proportions of fault. However, there is evidence that drivers and pedestrians of non-motor vehicles violate road traffic safety laws and regulations and motor vehicle drivers have already taken necessary disposal Measures to reduce the responsibility of the motor vehicle side of the accident. The loss of traffic accidents caused by non-motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians deliberately caused, and the motor vehicle side does not take responsibility. ”Article 17 states: “ Liability compulsory insurance system, the establishment of social assistance fund for road traffic accidents. ”“ Another Article 75 provides: ”Medical institutions should be injured in traffic accidents and Rescue, shall not delay the rescue due to the failure to pay the rescue fund in time.When the vehicle involved in the compulsory third party liability insurance, the insurance company shall pay the rescue expenses within the limit of liability; if the rescue expenses exceed the limit of liability, Three compulsory liability insurance or escape after the accident, the road traffic accident social assistance fund advances part or all of the first rescue expenses, the road traffic accident social assistance fund management agencies have the right to recourse to the responsible person for the accident. “These provisions in the formulation and The implementation of the process led to a wide range of social controversy. In the light of the extensive discussion aroused by so-called ”crashes“ in traffic accidents a few years ago, this discussion on ”motor vehicles taking full responsibility“ also reflects a deeper understanding of legislative values and related legislation Background and institutional controversy. However, Beijing Municipality once again raised the issue of ”full responsibility of motor vehicles" to a new height when it heard the legislative hearing and the new controversies arising from the enactment of measures to implement the law. The magazine invites experts in related fields to further differentiate these controversies surrounding the law from different angles, with a view to inspiring the law of observation, thinking and criticism and related laws and regulations.